Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Denying Global Warming

Denying Global Warming should definitely be added to the irrational precepts list. The biggest "reasons" they give for believing this are:

1. Temperatures have varied in the past (OK, that means people can't affect the climate?)
2. In the 1970's scientist thought we were headed for a new ice age (yeah, we were wrong. And of course Europe would be headed for a new ice age under the way we understand global warming now.)

Discuss......

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team

In order for something to become an Irrational Precept, the core rational members must agree. Unfortunatly (I'm very sad to say) Chaoslord2004 currently is a hold out on this issue. Convince him, and it becomes a precept.

I'm not 100% convinced on the issue either, the facts and figures I've seen from both sides of the camp are very sketchy and questionable. That being said, I do believe something needs to be done. There's only finite resources on this planet and they're running out fast. Global warming or no, those in the GW camp are offering up solutions that improve the efficiency of how we use our planet, put our resources to less waste and will make them last a LOT longer. Those are the reasons why I give those in the GW camp my support, whether I believe them or not.

One of the main things about those denying GW is the REASONS why , from my understanding , some of underlying reasons are that if the fundamental religious believers take on board theevidences for global warming , then they are forced to take on those same evidences that lead to the age of the earth , carbon dating , and more....

so again the pre conveived ideas get in the way of possible reality...

I'm not a meteorologist, but there's something I've never been able to get past.

*We know within a few percentage points exactly how much CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere, worldwide.

*We know within a few percentage points exactly how much atmosphere there is, and what it's composition is.

*We know precisely how much impact a given amount of CO2 has on greenhouse gas absorption in a given atmosphere composition.

Now, granted, there are some variables we don't know how to account for, but how many different ways are there to account for so many known variables?

In short, I find the evidence that human made additions to the atmosphere are increasing the effect of global warming to be very compelling. Quibbling over how much seems kind of silly. Why, exactly, does it matter if it's going to take 50 or 100 or 500 years?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

I totally agree with Hambydammit. We know the effect of our CO2 emissions on the atmosphere. It's really quite clear and indisputable: we impact the planet with our waste. Global warming, as I understand it, is merely the beginning of the problems that arise because of our emissions. Whether it is global warming or something else that is occurring as the result of our pollution, is unimportant as it is certain that the outcome is at best undesirable and at worst deadly. It is absurd that people actually dispute over the existence of global warming when it is certain that something is happening and that that something is terribly bad whatever it is. In any case, it certainly can't cause problems to become more efficient and economic in order to lower our waste.

I happen to agree with what the majority of scientists publish on the issue: that it is occurring and that it is directly the result of human activity. The sheer myriad of effects our pollution has on the world is extraordinary. Is it merely incidental that global temperatures are on the rise, that the frequency and severity of droughts has increased, that particular bodies of water are rising in level or falling and that polar ice melt has increased immensely? I rather think that these are not just coincidence or the result of natural cycles as both are contradicted by the available science. Should the denial of global warming be on the list of irrational precepts? I think that it should.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

I read a thread a while back on faith, and whether athiest have it. At first I thought the poster was full of BS, but I read something later on that I thought was interesting: No one can be an expert in every field, so we rely on authorities in these fields to base our beliefs on. I'm not saying that athiests take what they believe to be true at face value, but everyone at some point assumes something to be true based on research and opinions of others.

So what does that have to do with Global Warming? Well for me, the authorities in this field lack any taint of scientific honesty. Shouldn't scientist attempt disprove thier own theories, accept critism, all in order to make their theories stronger?

Try denying Global Warming (and the human causation of it) in a public discussion; it's almost as bad as denying the Holocost (I think many people would agree, regardless of their stance). Even worse, if a scientist calls evidence of GW into question, he/she will probably be out of a job.....THIS ISN'T HONEST SCIENCE.

Even if the scientific community overwhelmingly attributes human activity to be causing GW; could they be wrong? Well, it wouldn't be the first time. Scientists are not immune to political and economical influences.

What could be another cause for the warming of the earth (which I do believe is probably happening)? Well, what about that big firey thing floating in the sky...Our Sun.

Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog

Now, go to peer reviewed science journals and read everything you can find about global warming. (I've only read about fifty or so. There are hundreds. Maybe thousands.)

I think what you'll find is that there is no debate about whether or not humans are causing an increase in the greenhouse effect. The only debate is the degree to which humans are causing a greenhouse effect.

Quote:

Try denying Global Warming (and the human causation of it) in a public discussion; it's almost as bad as denying the Holocost (I think many people would agree, regardless of their stance).

Do you know why this is? It's because there's pretty much the same level of certainty within the academic scientific community about global warming as there is about the existence of the holocaust.

Quote:

Even worse, if a scientist calls evidence of GW into question, he/she will probably be out of a job.....THIS ISN'T HONEST SCIENCE.

Here's where you have it wrong. If he works for an energy company or the government, he will likely lose his job. If he works for an unbiased scientific organization, he will be held to the standards of scientific integrity. If his work is valid, it will be accepted.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Well, I believe I said that scientist are not immune to political or economic influences. That is valid for both sides of the issue.

Are GW doubters going to get funding from the IPCC? No way in Hell. You completely disregard the fact that scientific funding for conflicting viewpoints is nonexistant.

You nailed it right on that I'm american, but I live in Germany. The government here is also one of the strongest backers of co2 reduction. Is it just a coinsidence that energy poor countries like Germay are pushing energy consumtion limits? Germans have a real economical fear of countries like China and India, and realize that their increasing energy demands are related to their continued growth.

It's funny that you said that I should ignore reports funded by energy companies, because Energy companies here are pushing the government, as well as popular opinion, hard for a comeback in Nuclear (very co2 friendly) energy.

Everything I said about energy companies was specific to America because I don't have enough knowledge about what foreign energy companies are doing to say either way.

I'm aware that there are several alternative energy companies abroad, and that many European nations are pushing towards CO2 reduction.

I recognize that scientists are subject to politicization. There are two primary ways (in America) that science gets funded. First, companies sponsor research in the hopes of the results helping them financially. These reports, particularly in the U.S, are highly suspect. Second, non-affiliated research is sponsored by universities. While it's not completely removed from politics, this is where most of the least biased research comes from. In America, virtually all of the data I've seen from non-company sponsored research is in complete agreement. I live in a university town, and I have connections in many of the departments. I know how hard it is to get funding for certain kinds of research. However, I also know that many universities will not accept grant money from companies that would give the research an appearance of bias.

The last thing I want you to consider is this: The composition of our atmosphere is known with statistical certainty. The amount of human generated greenhouse gasses is known within a very small margin of error. The effect of any percentage increase is known with mathematical certainty. The only unknowns are the effect of confounding variables like ice sheets, volcanoes, and clouds.

Again, I am not aware of any unbiased research that denies 1) how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere or 2) that this CO2 increases the greenhouse effect to some degree. The only disagreement I've ever seen is to what degree the effect is manifested.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Jolt, would you expect a "scientist" who claimed the Earth was flat or that the sun orbited the Earth to get funding? What about an obstetrician who claimed babies weren't really born, but were brought by a stork? What about an oceanographer who claimed that the tides weren't caused by the Sun and Moon, but were caused by giant undersea hamsters running on wheels while dressed in clown suits? What about a computer engineer who claimed that pouring ice cream into computers made them work better? Or a mathemetician who claimed that 2 + 2 = 5? Don't you think these ideas would be a waste of money? Same thing here.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team

I think you assume too many facts to be certain. Scientists base their research on models, they have to, and these will never be perfect. So how good are they? Are they good enough to predict/measure temperature deviations of 2,3 or 4 degrees. How about a half a degree? or less...You can wring your hands all day long about how different factors complicate the 'right' results.

The biggest co2 producer in the world isn't mankind, it's the ocean. The ocean acts as a huge co2 bank. In cold temperatures is stores it, and during warmer temperatures it releases it again. I suppose someone can argue that humans just started the long path to global warming. But, just as well you could argue that outside factors such as increased sun activity (solar flares) started it all. I really can't imagine how scientists can differentiate between manmade emissions and natural ones, but I'm no expert.

Hammbydammit, I read The God Delusion not too long ago and Richard Dawkings told a story about an old professor, who recognizing that someone had proven his careers' work to be wrong, walked down to thank the visiting prof. Do you believe that your contacts at your local university would throw away their careers (because that's what would happen if they said anything) if they suspected what they were researching/proving was wrong?

I suppose that my scientific faith, if there is actually such a thing, is not very strong.....

Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog

I really can't imagine how scientist can differentiate between manmade emissions and natural ones, but I'm no expert.

That you are not. Neither am I. The answer should be obvious nonetheless. Human produced CO2 emissions can be detected at the source! There are industrial (occupational) hygienists employed to do exactly that sort of measurement, not to mention researchers who measure these emissions as well. Companies that produce such emissions report to federal agencies in most countries as emissions are usually regulated (so that harmful stuff isn't released into the atmosphere). Simple chemistry can even predict how much CO2 will be emitted.

The effects of these emissions can be measured and are well known. Have you never heard of a smog advisory? A ground level ozone advisory? Are you unaware of the severe droughts plaguing parts of the Earth? The increased melting of glacial and polar ice? The temperature of the Earth has risen and the measurements are very exact. Increased solar activity is known not to have this sort of effect. The Sun is, in fact, very regular and a significant amount of core samples and geological information tell scientists exactly how hot and cold the Earth has been in the past due to the Sun and how long cooling and heating periods were. CO2 levels can be measured from core samples and geological information. The amount of evidence indicating human activity is involved with the current climate change is enormous and undisputed by the world's scientific community at large.

No faith is required in science. It is a self-checking endeavour reliant on flasifiable experiments, verifiable measurements and reproducibility. There may be disputes over so-called 'Global Warming' but by any other name the recent climatological events are profound and are potentially disastrous.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

Hammbydammit said that the amount of human generated co2 gases is known to a very small margin of error.The processes you describe can, at best, only give a rough approximation.Of course I realize that air samples can be analyzed, I thought that that was too obvious to mention.

Your comments are an exemplarily example of why rational people can still doubt the given causations of global warming (yeah, I know it might be hard to believe, but I do believe that research indicates that the earth is warming).

First of all, the sensationalism.If everyone doesn't shut the fuck up and fall in line, then the world is going to self-destruct.Do you honestly believe that a process that took hundreds of years to get to this point is just going to turn around in a decade or two?There is time for honest, open debate.People aren't dumb.They realize that droughts, flooding, or whichever environmental event you want has been happening for millions of years and will continue on long after humans are no longer living.

Secondly, your certainty about the methods and models currently in use.I say currently in use because, as Mattschizzle mentioned earlier,models that predicted global cooling were previously in use...until they stopped working.As I said before, trying to pass off the results of models and methods that contain inherent uncertainties, as cold solid evidence is plain and simply dishonest.At best these tools can give an indication of possible correlations.

Thanks for pointing out that I'm not a scientist.I should just shut my mouth, right? Just because there other people, with a much deeper understanding of this subject, around cannot and should not stop anyone from voicing their opinion.Fascism is just not a great foundation for policy making.

Finally, I think I understand why most of you would like to classify this as an irrational precept.The scientific community is, for the most part, in agreement with the environmentalists.A huge collection of literature on this subject has been published.And if you look at this issued just on those terms, then yeah it would probably be irrational to not believe such a thing.

But if you widen your perspective you might see something that many others see.Namely this issue is so infested with political (from the far left and right), economic, global, ....influences, that you know that something’s just isn't right.Doesn't it send warning flags up when one side states that their stance is proven, and no further discussion is allowed?Even when many people are standing on the sidelines saying that it probably isn't.

I'm not a Christian. I don't work for an Oil Company.I use public transportation and live by the three R's.But what I will never do is believe something because someone else told me I must.Personally, I see this way of thinking not just in the Christian circles, but lately everywhere and it pisses me off.....

Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog

Hammbydammit said that the amount of human generated co2 gases is known to a very small margin of error.The processes you describe can, at best, only give a rough approximation.Of course I realize that air samples can be analyzed, I thought that that was too obvious to mention.

Your comments are an exemplarily example of why rational people can still doubt the given causations of global warming (yeah, I know it might be hard to believe, but I do believe that research indicates that the earth is warming).

First of all, the sensationalism.If everyone doesn't shut the fuck up and fall in line, then the world is going to self-destruct.Do you honestly believe that a process that took hundreds of years to get to this point is just going to turn around in a decade or two?There is time for honest, open debate.People aren't dumb.They realize that droughts, flooding, or whichever environmental event you want has been happening for millions of years and will continue on long after humans are no longer living.

Secondly, your certainty about the methods and models currently in use.I say currently in use because, as Mattschizzle mentioned earlier,models that predicted global cooling were previously in use...until they stopped working.As I said before, trying to pass off the results of models and methods that contain inherent uncertainties, as cold solid evidence is plain and simply dishonest.At best these tools can give an indication of possible correlations.

Thanks for pointing out that I'm not a scientist.I should just shut my mouth, right? Just because there other people, with a much deeper understanding of this subject, around cannot and should not stop anyone from voicing their opinion.Fascism is just not a great foundation for policy making.

Finally, I think I understand why most of you would like to classify this as an irrational precept.The scientific community is, for the most part, in agreement with the environmentalists.A huge collection of literature on this subject has been published.And if you look at this issued just on those terms, then yeah it would probably be irrational to not believe such a thing.

But if you widen your perspective you might see something that many others see.Namely this issue is so infested with political (from the far left and right), economic, global, ....influences, that you know that something’s just isn't right.Doesn't it send warning flags up when one side states that their stance is proven, and no further discussion is allowed?Even when many people are standing on the sidelines saying that it probably isn't.

I'm not a Christian. I don't work for an Oil Company.I use public transportation and live by the three R's.But what I will never do is believe something because someone else told me I must.Personally, I see this way of thinking not just in the Christian circles, but lately everywhere and it pisses me off.....

So you won't believe something just because people tell you to, but apparently you will disbelieve something simply because you want to. Is GW used as a politicaltool? Yes. Does that invalidate the science? No. Might the models be wrong because other models have been wrong before? Yes. Does that mean we should throw them out? No. You see, what you are doing is the exact same thing creationists do. You aren't pointing out any problems with the actual science. You are making excuses as to why you don't, or more accurately won't, believe the science. The data still stands.

The scientific community is in solid agreement over global warming. There is consensus across a number of different fields. There is a consilience of evidence from numerous different research projects. These are the things you need to address if you wish to have a rational reason for doubting global warming. To doubt it simply because you think there could be a conspiracy and they might be wrong are the same reason so many nutjobs cite for discounting the evidence for evolution. You aren't in any way making a case against GW, you are making a case for your not believing in GW. Those are two completely different things and to make a case for not believing without making a case against the thing itself is not what most would consider rational.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

I'm not convinced the Earth warming is a bad thing. I think the main problem with GW as a political issue is that you get all these hysterics about how the world is going to end, sea levels will rise and worldwide droughts will kill everyone. Quite frankly, the Earth has to heat up a hell of a lot more than a few degrees to kill all of us. Regardless of the extent that GW is caused by man I really don't think it should be our biggest concern. We will kill ourselves by breathing the pollution long before we manage to heat up the Earth enough. Smog, acid rain, water and soil pollution are far more immediate consequences of our pollution and are the things we should be worrying about.

Maybe someone can explain this to me but I never understood how global warming causes draughts. Heat speeds up evaporation, which creates clouds, which causes rain. Water does not leave Earth, it will eventually come down somewhere. If there is a draught one place, as there is every year, there is above average rain elsewhere, as there is every year. Why do you think there is so much damn rain in the rainforests?

When environmentalists come out and scream that GW is causing hurricanes, draughts, rising sea levels etc. they sound like lunatics and do nothing for their cause. If you want to save the environment you are far better off focusing on the immediate consequences of pollution and pointing those out rather than focusing of global climate change which may or may not occur even if we ceased to exist today.

The bottom line is we know for a fact that climate change has occured long before man existed. Even if we are speeding it up what basis do we have that it is the end of the world? If it is happening anyway, even if we stop polluting 100% it will still happen just more slowly. You end with a big so what. Worry about the consequences of pollution that actually affect people today and you will get much farther politically.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Am I making up excuses why I won’t believe the science? That's an interesting point.I don't believe so. Many of the ideas that I believe to be true/proven have withstood the test of time.The Test Of Time.In the span of less than two decades, leaders in this field have declared GW to be proven. PROVEN.No dissention present. No debate present.This is absolutely not the case.

It is not that I believe that scientists are intentionally faking their results.I do believe though that scientists can create a theory based on very limited data.Case in point, Global cooling.With just a short cooling trend, researchers built an entirely new theory. How could this not be a lesson of caution?

You see, the difficulty with trying to disprove a model arises out of how they are built.Researchers collect data, analyze it, and then attempt to find some way to predict the same behavior in the future.Their models are just a best guess on how a system works.Sometimes this works well, and sometimes researchers must go back to adjust their models to factor in new information, or fix problems.But it will never be a perfect reflection of reality.These inherently imperfect models are then used to prove a certain hypothesis.Do you see it?Models are built to work!Just how well,iswhat is debatable and interesting.

Now leaders in this field want everyone to believe that their research is a slam dunk.So sure in fact, that if someone really does disagree then they must be an industry stooge, or just crazy.Many dissenters agree that the earth is warming, and has been for the past 400 years.What they do say is that the models and methods linking c02 levels with the temperature rise are not as valid as they are made out to be, let alone proven.

Quote:

The scientific community is in solid agreement over global warming. There is consensus across a number of different fields. There is a consilience of evidence from numerous different research projects. These are the things you need to address if you wish to have a rational reason for doubting global warming.

As for showing how such a majority can confirm a hypothesis and still be wrong, that is exactly what I've tried to do in my previous posts.Scientists are human.They have egos, political motivations, are subject to monetary influences, and have at times a 'follow the leader mentality'.We should not follow a group blindly, regardless of how many are leading.

Quote:

Might the models be wrong because other models have been wrong before? Yes. Does that mean we should throw them out? No. You see, what you are doing is the exact same thing creationists do. You aren't pointing out any problems with the actual science.

I think that the possibility that the models might be wrong is a pretty big problem.Another problem: Other models that may indicate other causes are rejected on the grounds that the true source has already been found.

Readiness to answer all questions is the infallible sign of stupidity. Saul Bellow, Herzog

One thing I have always found fascinating is that GW hysteric types can tell me exactly how many degrees the world is going to warm up but the weatherman can't accurately tell me what the temp will be next week. Except when I lived in San Diego and the temp was pretty much the same every day. And still is the same as it was actually it was 1/2 degree farenheit warmer on average when I lived there. Why isn't San Diego participating in GW?

It is difficult to draw conclusions about what our exact effect on the climate is because our records are extremely short. Too short to accurately determine whether warming is happening faster than it already was. Again, we know for a fact that warming has been happening for thousands of years demonstrable by the fact that I am not living on a glacier but the river I like to visit was caused by a melting glacier. We have 100 years of accurate records. Not much in the grand scheme of things.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Am I making up excuses why I won’t believe the science? That's an interesting point.I don't believe so. Many of the ideas that I believe to be true/proven have withstood the test of time.The Test Of Time.In the span of less than two decades, leaders in this field have declared GW to be proven. PROVEN.No dissention present. No debate present.This is absolutely not the case

It is not that I believe that scientists are intentionally faking their results.I do believe though that scientists can create a theory based on very limited data.Case in point, Global cooling.With just a short cooling trend, researchers built an entirely new theory. How could this not be a lesson of caution?

This global cooling thing is blown completely out of proportion. There was nothing near the amount of data to support such a thing as there is to support GW. Global cooling was the presses darling and had little scientific support. To try and compare the two is ridiculous.

Quote:

You see, the difficulty with trying to disprove a model arises out of how they are built.Researchers collect data, analyze it, and then attempt to find some way to predict the same behavior in the future.Their models are just a best guess on how a system works.Sometimes this works well, and sometimes researchers must go back to adjust their models to factor in new information, or fix problems.But it will never be a perfect reflection of reality.These inherently imperfect models are then used to prove a certain hypothesis.Do you see it?Models are built to work!Just how well,iswhat is debatable and interesting.

Of course they are built to work. They are built to make accurate predicitions from the data available. Why would they build them not to work? I always love when some person thinks that they can see the glaring problem with the best tools we have available to conduct scientific research and make accurate predicitions while all the scientists are completely fooled into believing their findings are accurate.

The thing is, when you have models that confirm one another, separate areas of research that come together at a common point, a scientific concensus on the scale of the one we see with GW, then there is no reason to take seriously those who doubt it without providing hard scientific evidence of why it is wrong.

Quote:

Now leaders in this field want everyone to believe that their research is a slam dunk.So sure in fact, that if someone really does disagree then they must be an industry stooge, or just crazy.

Can you point out any specific instances where one's research was sound but ignored due to a pro-GW bias?

Quote:

Many dissenters agree that the earth is warming, and has been for the past 400 years.What they do say is that the models and methods linking c02 levels with the temperature rise are not as valid as they are made out to be, let alone proven.

Nothing is ever proven. It is the nature of the beast.

If one thinks the models aren't valid that's fine, but, if it is going against the opinions of the vast, vast majority of the professionals actually conducting the research then hey should have reasons for thinking such a thing aside from simply thinking it.

Quote:

As for showing how such a majority can confirm a hypothesis and still be wrong, that is exactly what I've tried to do in my previous posts.Scientists are human.They have egos, political motivations, are subject to monetary influences, and have at times a 'follow the leader mentality'.We should not follow a group blindly, regardless of how many are leading.

Yes and we could question evolution for the same exact reasons. It is pointless, however, unless you have actual problems with the methodology or places where you can show the science is faulty. To simply question motivations means nothing. You need to be able to back up your accusations by showing where they have conducted 'bad' science or you have no basis for thinking that the findings are actually wrong.

Quote:

I think that the possibility that the models might be wrong is a pretty big problem.

There is always a chance everything might be wrong. But unless you know of a specific reason why a specific model is likely to give a false result and why multiple models would show consilience at a particular outcome then it is just saying 'the models could be wrong' and nothing substantial.

You should have reasons why you think the models are wrong if you want to challenge the findings of educated professionals who believe the models to be right.

Quote:

Another problem: Other models that may indicate other causes are rejected on the grounds that the true source has already been found.

Source?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

One thing I have always found fascinating is that GW hysteric types can tell me exactly how many degrees the world is going to warm up but the weatherman can't accurately tell me what the temp will be next week. Except when I lived in San Diego and the temp was pretty much the same every day. And still is the same as it was actually it was 1/2 degree farenheit warmer on average when I lived there. Why isn't San Diego participating in GW?

Truthfully, you should look up the answer to a questions like this as it shows a profound misunderstanding of what GW predicts. GW does not result in a consistentsteady rise in temperatures at all geographic locations across small scale time frames, and in fact can lead to temporary periods of cooler temperatures some places due to its effects on ocean currents and other weather building phenomenon.

Quote:

It is difficult to draw conclusions about what our exact effect on the climate is because our records are extremely short. Too short to accurately determine whether warming is happening faster than it already was. Again, we know for a fact that warming has been happening for thousands of years demonstrable by the fact that I am not living on a glacier but the river I like to visit was caused by a melting glacier. We have 100 years of accurate records. Not much in the grand scheme of things.

Our records are not our only source of reference for the historical climate. There are many methods, glacial ice cores and tree rings to name a couple, by which we can measure past climate change. Scientists account for historical climate change when conducting research. I would rest assured they have taken into account past periods of warming and cooling.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins

Our records are not our only source of reference for the historical climate. There are many methods, glacial ice cores and tree rings to name a couple, by which we can measure past climate change. Scientists account for historical climate change when conducting research. I would rest assured they have taken into account past periods of warming and cooling.

As I already stated, I understand the climate has been warming. Obviously, the glaciers have been melting for a long, long time. What I am questioning is the extent to which man contributes. I don't believe we have nearly the power we imagine to change the climate. For example, if we were to cease existing today, the climate would continue to warm.

Also, even given that we contribute at least a little to GW I am not convinced that it is the horrible thing the GW hysteric types would have us believe. Most science that really goes far back shows that this type of warming period has occured before, the Earth survived and there is really no reason to believe it will be substantially different this time. Indeed, along with any negative effects, there are also several positive effects to GW such as longer growing seasons in certain areas.

My point from the beginning is that GW is not the end of the world as it has been portrayed as a political issue. We are not going to die in the next 100 years or even the next 1000 years as many would have us believe. So if your goal is to get people to stop polluting, you are best off making a different appeal. Then when politically motivated groups go out and make absurd claims like hurricane Katrina was caused by GW, and the oceans are going to flood NYC, and the glaciers wouldn't be melting if we stopped polluting etc, any reasonable person is going to look at their arguments and rightly determine that they are crazt. Our pollution will kill us 1000 other ways before GW ever has a chance. So environmentalists, if you want to win for your issue, give up on GW and go back to talking about more immediate environmental issues such as water, soil and air pollution. If we fix those, we will also reduce CO2 emissions. If you expect people to buy hybrid cars because the Earth is getting warmer you will lose.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

This global cooling thing is blown completely out of proportion. There was nothing near the amount of data to support such a thing as there is to support GW. Global cooling was the presses darling and had little scientific support. To try and compare the two is ridiculous.

As I read my post once more I can see no place where I compared GW with GC. The point I was making was that caution is always required.

Although I have written several counter-arguments, I realize that I haven't given any 'raw' information on my view. So I searched the net and found a few articles and videos.

So the onus is on you to define exactly what a rational person should believe and it's irrational not to believe.

By Global Warming do you mean:

The measured change in temperature over the last few decades is 100% man-made.

Could this change be partly man made, partly natural?

Must we believe that the consequences of global warming are all bad for all species of life? I am allowed to believe that there could possible be a net benefit to having a warmer earth? Maybe we should do nothing to stop it until we know more about the consequences?

Maybe the answer for Global Warming is Nuclear Winter.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen

Denying Global Warming should definitely be added to the irrational precepts list. The biggest "reasons" they give for believing this are: 1. Temperatures have varied in the past (OK, that means people can't affect the climate?)

I agree, people are not likely the culprit for any warming we have. GW is most likely a political manuever for economic purposes. I wish I could prove it, but globalization cannot survive under strict competition for energy resources. The best way to keep poor countries in a third world condition would be to keep energy supplies tight and maintain so-called carbon emissions. Again, this may sound irrational, but if you read John Perkins: Diary of an Economic Hitman it sounds somewhat plausible.

MattShizzle wrote:

2. In the 1970's scientist thought we were headed for a new ice age (yeah, we were wrong. And of course Europe would be headed for a new ice age under the way we understand global warming now.) Discuss...... :lol:

I've heard this arguement before and the rebuttal was that the cooling we were supposed to experience has somewhat offset the warming. Therefore, the dimming they described actually cut the rate of warming we may be seeing today. I see this as a possibility, but I seriously doubt man is causing any warming we seem to be experiencing today.

The Earth has gone through serious changes in the billions of years its' been here. The problem lies in the massive population of the world and our reliance on technology. The politics involved in this event are the most disturbing aspect of this scenario IMO. If the politicians and big business keep us fighting over what the cause is they don't have to do anything to prepare. This is just another example of hiding heads in the sand until the problem is at the front door.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS

Denying Global Warming should definitely be added to the irrational precepts list. The biggest "reasons" they give for believing this are: 1. Temperatures have varied in the past (OK, that means people can't affect the climate?)

I agree, people are not likely the culprit for any warming we have. GW is most likely a political manuever for economic purposes. I wish I could prove it, but globalization cannot survive under strict competition for energy resources. The best way to keep poor countries in a third world condition would be to keep energy supplies tight and maintain so-called carbon emissions. Again, this may sound irrational, but if you read John Perkins: Diary of an Economic Hitman it sounds somewhat plausible.

Uh, you misread him. He's saying denying global warming should be listed. Both sides of the issue have been politicized, but the scientific consensus is that anthropogenic climate change is real. I would agree with denying it being listed as irrational.

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

2. In the 1970's scientist thought we were headed for a new ice age (yeah, we were wrong. And of course Europe would be headed for a new ice age under the way we understand global warming now.) Discuss...... :lol:

I've heard this arguement before and the rebuttal was that the cooling we were supposed to experience has somewhat offset the warming. Therefore, the dimming they described actually cut the rate of warming we may be seeing today. I see this as a possibility, but I seriously doubt man is causing any warming we seem to be experiencing today.

The Earth has gone through serious changes in the billions of years its' been here. The problem lies in the massive population of the world and our reliance on technology. The politics involved in this event are the most disturbing aspect of this scenario IMO. If the politicians and big business keep us fighting over what the cause is they don't have to do anything to prepare. This is just another example of hiding heads in the sand until the problem is at the front door.

There was never a scientific consensus around global cooling. That is a myth. It was the media jumping to that conclusion.

I have an opportunity to know the problem from both sides. In this country here's a president, who denies the global warming. He sees it as a way of the Greens to gain power and tighten up a control over citizen's freedom. He even wrote a book about it "Blue, not green planet". It's quite funny he was a leader of a dominant political party, having a sign of a blue bird. They're called a blue roughscuff. Thus the book's name sounds like he's considering himself as a president of planet, and he's definitely arrogant enough for it.

I am well aware, that the weather had gone crazy in last years. There was a nice, warm spring weather in December, not only once. Also, I live in a place with temperate climate, but here started to appear things like aurora borealis, tornados and recently hurricanes, nobody around remembers that. There were also some interesting documents in TV, how poisonous spiders and other exotic visitors found England and other temperate climate countries comfortable for their swarming around. There is definitely something going on with the weather, but it's not sure if it is completely caused by greenhouse gases. For example, there's extremely high sun activity in last years, which is probably a part of some greater cycle. Still, it's not wise to add to it with the CO2 and methane emissions, and remember, the environment pollution still remains, if Earth is warming or not.

On the other side, the Green party is a horde of real pests. Instead of bothering the rainforest cutters, they make our already hard lives even harder. My family owns a small patch of flood-plain forest, in a marshy pit of a brook land depression, which goes through local landscape. It's not really big, but it's quite curse. If you have a forest, you must take care of it, there are laws. If there's a strong wind, and some damn trees dares to fall or gets broken, the family must grab a chaisaw and go cut it to pieces and then somehow get all this huge mass of wood out of the marsh, through a goddamn truck-flooded road, to the hill and through carrying, cutting it again and storing it, in order to get all the goddamn tree finally through a chimney hole. If anyone would a tree just lie where it fell, there would be a financial penalty. OK, no problem, furnace needs to be fed, but nowadays with Greens behind our ass, every goddamn tree must be first permitted to be cut, which is possible only in winter. Every permission must be paid. Now imagine that a storm doesn't care if it's winter or not and that you always have to pay, so you can continue in a back-breaking routine of getting the goddamn wood under your roof. Of course we ignore this idiotic law and continue what we have to do. If the Greens doesn't like it, they should try to get their asses out of the city and try to carry some cubic meters of wood by themselves. To hell with trees! They're just an overgrown weed, specially the damn willow. I don't mind if they're in rainforests or taiga, and I like having a fresh oxygen, but sometimes it's necessary to cut one, two, or three down for benefit of all, including the rest of trees. Sorry for the cursing, but my fragile body vessel still hurts of the wood torture. It's like pushing a Sisyfos' stone upsides a hill, just it's wooden and it doesn't fall back down the hill like in the legend, but under the hill just grows a new tree.

The IPCC does not claim GW is 100% due to man-made CO2, only that the latest analysis points with greater than 90% confidence that we are adding significantly extra CO2 to raise the Global Mean temperature, which is a measure of the total heat trapped in the atmosphere, not to be confused with local daily temperature variations.

Incidentally, we can detect that fossil fuel burning is the likely source of much of the extra CO2 because it has a different isotopic composition than that which originates from other sources such as current biological activity.

The concern is that this will lead to temperature rises significantly higher than would otherwise be the case, to levels which in the past have been associated with much higher sea levels, for one thing. The other aspect is that the rate of increase will be higher than usual, making it harder for both us and threatened species to adapt and/or migrate to new habitats. It also seems that any gains in land available for agriculture due to warming and increased rainfall, in regions closer to the poles, will be more than offset by the amount of land closer to the equator that will become too hot and dry for food growing.

The temperature data for the last few thousand years shows that there was actually a long term modest cooling trend which turned sharply upward somewhere around the early 20th Century. The latest computer models have been tested by feeding in the known atmospheric data, including the CO2 concentration, to past periods, including the more localised Cooling period, and their temperature predictions fit the known records quite well, allowing us to have increasing confidence in the predictions for the future.

I'm not 100% convinced on the issue either, the facts and figures I've seen from both sides of the camp are very sketchy and questionable. That being said, I do believe something needs to be done. There's only finite resources on this planet and they're running out fast. Global warming or no, those in the GW camp are offering up solutions that improve the efficiency of how we use our planet, put our resources to less waste and will make them last a LOT longer. Those are the reasons why I give those in the GW camp my support, whether I believe them or not.

quoted for agreement. Doing saomething positive for the planet is a worthy goal that I support even if I'm not 100% sure about the severity of the problem. However, some people I've spoken to about this only heard the "I'm not sure" bit, twisted it to sound like "nah, GW isn't a problem", and then proceeded to attack me for it.

I'm not sure how severe the problem is, given that the planet tends to go through warming and cooling trends in between ice ages, but I don't agree with denial either (and it's not just a river in Egypt). Once we gather more evidence for the problem, my view on this will change accordingly (and I do admit that the increased melting rate of the ice and snow in Siberia, as demonstrated on a documentary recently, concerns me because of the release of methane into the atmosphere as a result, but I'm digressing).

It's not necessarily irrationality here. It's about business and profits. They want to deny it because cutting down greenhouse emissions would cut into their profits. They don't care what happens to the next generation as long as they get rich during their lifetimes. Besides, if the end is near there's no point in preserving the earh anyway, right?

It's also about the "purpose" of Earth. I knew someone who lived in 'Hicksville', OR for a while. He was a nature lover and had a hard time dealing with the people there who believed that "God put them trees there for us to chop down".

They have no desire to save the earth. God put Earth here for us to rape, pillage, and plunder ... didn't you know that?

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher

I'm not a meteorologist, but there's something I've never been able to get past.

*We know within a few percentage points exactly how much CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere, worldwide.

*We know within a few percentage points exactly how much atmosphere there is, and what it's composition is.

*We know precisely how much impact a given amount of CO2 has on greenhouse gas absorption in a given atmosphere composition.

Now, granted, there are some variables we don't know how to account for, but how many different ways are there to account for so many known variables?

one of those variables: deforestation (less vegetation to breathe in the CO2, the more CO2 is going to linger in our atmosphere).

another variable: the cattle business (large herds of cattle produce a lot of methane and CO2, adding to the CO2 weight).

here's another one: melting of snow in the north and south poles (less snow cover to reflect the sun rays back into space).

this is obvious: war (logistics required).

a few to consider, any other variables?

He was referring to variables we can't account for.

We know the effects of deforestation and also how much CO2 cattle produce. As for snow melt, I would assume that if we knew the average annual snow fall and the area the snow covered we'd be able to track the effects of there being less snow. In fact, we do know this. The impact of war can probably be estimated quite accurately. I don't know if it is.

Now, the main point was this: '... how many different ways are there to account for so many known variables?' The question was rhetorical. There aren't that many ways to account for so many variables. Granted, the change of some have significantly varying effects, however, the models out there that use the variables that are known accurately tend to show the same results.

Do you agree that humans have an effect on the environment? Do you believe that effect is overall detrimental? If so, it is immaterial what we call the present phenomenon (it is inaccurate in many ways in any case to label it global warming) or what the variables are that are difficult to account for or that we have little data on; it is occurring and it is not going to have positive outcomes. In any case, it is conclusive that humans do have a detrimental effect on the environment, so any change to our impact would be for the good regardless of whether or not any significant environmental emergency is presently occurring.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."

ScienceDaily (May 15, 2008) — A vast array of physical and biological systems across the earth are being affected by warming temperatures caused by humans, says a new analysis of information not previously assembled all in one spot. The effects on living things include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the northern hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.

"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the warming world is causing impacts on physical and biological systems attributable at the global scale," said lead author Cynthia Rosenzweig, a scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia Center for Climate Systems Research. Both are affiliates of The Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth's poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.

Rosenzweig and researchers from 10 other institutions across the world analyzed data from published papers on 829 physical systems and some 28,800 plant and animal systems, stretching back to 1970. Their analysis of revealed a picture of changes on continental scales; previous studies had looked mainly at single phenomena, or smaller areas. In physical systems,95% of observed changes are consistent with warming trends. These include wastage of glaciers on all continents; melting permafrost; earlier spring river runoff; and warming of water bodies. Among living creatures inhabiting such systems, 90% of changes are consistent with warming.

The researchers say it is unlikely that any force but human-influenced climate change could be driving all this; factors like deforestation or natural climate variations could not explain it. Their work builds upon the consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in 2007 declared manmade climate warming "likely" to have discernible effects on biological and physical systems.

"It was a real challenge to separate the influence of human-caused temperature increases from natural climate variations or other confounding factors, such as land-use changes or pollution," said coauthor David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia. "This was possible only through the combined efforts of our multi-disciplinary team, which examined observed changes in many different systems around the globe, as well as global climate model simulations of temperature changes."

"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions," Rosenzweig said. "The warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia."

The data showing the patterns of change are strongest in North America, Asia and Europe--mainly because far more studies have been done there, said Rosenzweig. On the other continents, including South America, Australia and Africa, documentation of changes in physical and biological systems is sparse, even though there is good evidence there of human-influenced warming itself. The authors say that there is an urgent need to study these environmental systems, especially in tropical and subtropical areas.

This phenomenon is real folks! We, the Atheist community, need to take a responsible, knowledgeable and dare I say it rational approach to what is undoubtedly the most threatening problem our species has ever faced. Yes, I have stated this in stark terms. I do not resile from them. That is the situation.Theist will call upon god. We must utilise our own resources.

I take a skeptical approach, but I am not sure whether that is correct!

Quote:

Melting Glaciers and Ice Sheets Contribute to Global Sea-Level Rise

The Steffen research group assesses the annual and interannual variability of cyrospheric parameters in the Arctic in response to climate perturbation. One example of our research projects - the Greenland ice sheet - is highlighted below.

The total volume of land-based ice in the Arctic has been estimated to be about 3,100,000 cubic kilometers, which corresponds to a sea-level equivalent of about eight meters. Most arctic glaciers and ice caps have been in decline since the early 1960s, with this trend speeding up in the 1990s. A small number of glaciers, especially in Scandinavia, have gained mass as increased precipitation outpaced the increase in melting in few areas.

The Greenland Ice Sheet dominates land ice in the Arctic. Maximum surface-melt area on the ice sheet increased on the average by 16% from 1979-2002 (Steffen et al., 2004), an area roughly the size of Sweden, with considerable variability from year to year, The total area of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet broke all records in 2002, with extreme melting reaching up to 2000 meters in elevation. Satellite data show an increasing trend in the melt extent since 1979. This trend is interrupted in 1992, following the eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo, which created a short-term global cooling as particles spewed from the volcano reduced the amount of sunlight that reached the earth.

Seasonal surface melt extent on the Greenland Ice Sheet has been observed by satellite since 1979 and shows an increasing trend. The melt zone, where summer warmth turns snow and ice around the edges of the ice sheet into slush and ponds of meltwater, has been expanding inland and to record high elevations in recent years (source: Arctic Impacts of Arctic Warming, Cambridge Press, 2004).

More splendid news on this non-event?

I take a skeptical approach, but I am not sure whether that is correct!

In fact, over 25 million tons of CO2 dissolve in seawater every day. However, the oceans do not escape unscathed. When CO2 dissolves in sea water, it causes the formation of carbonic acid, which leads to a fall in pH (the pH scale is used to measure acidity(2)). This change is called “ocean acidification” and is happening at a rate that has not been experienced probably for the last 20 million years.

The effects of this huge input of CO2 into the oceans only began to be studied in the late 1990s(3) and are still poorly understood. One of the most likely consequences will be slower growth of organisms with calcareous skeletons, such as corals, mollusks, algae, etc. Obtaining more information about ocean acidification is a major environmental priority because of the threat it poses to certain species and ecosystems.

Note the many related stories re Ocean Acidification: this one is a real sleeper and not susceptible of remedy for centuries.

Jolt wrote:

I suppose someone can argue that humans just started the long path to global warming. But, just as well you could argue that outside factors such as increased sun activity (solar flares) started it all.

"The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum," said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

I really can't imagine how scientists can differentiate between manmade emissions and natural ones, but I'm no expert.

We can differentiate b/w human and natural emissions by modeling their effects. The various factors affecting GW are GreenHouse Gases (CO2, Methane & so forth), Solar, Vulcanic, Aerosols, etc. These are referred to as forcing agents. The models clearly show that purely natural forcings cannot account for the warming which is taking place. When human agents are included a far better match to data is obtained.

what are you meaning by denying global warming? i would agree with the concept of global warming.

but i will not agree with most of the sciencetists that try to send me that this is the first time this happened and humans are responsible for it! because that would be like saying hey i died on a cross and rose again 2000+ years ago. which is blindly accepting someone word for it is not always right. now i will agree human don't help the matter but if there is Global Warming then First and main Cause is The Sun and then The Earth and then humans. not this idea of humans main cause and nature and sun have not that much impact on Global Warming! because that is called using fear to make you look good and to make other people accountable and the attention is taking off you and allows to do what you want. and if you think i am being irrational on that then i must also be irrational in the belief is the government uses this tactic.

Just because someone says something or the majority say its the truth does not mean it is! but again a lot of the sciencetists saying humans main reason for it are in my opinion puting science on a pedalstoll and ignoring other aspects of the spectrum that can answer like History! but it goes back to the issue of wanting to control people and people love this idea no matter in what area of study it is they will protray that it is the most importantance and ignore anything that disagrees with their Belief!!!

sorry but this is my opinion on this and i am only trying to help out but if i see something used to control what i think im going to point it out because i feel that if i dont then i have no right to be in the discussion!

Sea level rise due to the effects of GW on Greenland and Antarctic glaciers is a serious worry, and it does not need the glaciers to melt, it just needs them to slide off into the ocean. They do indeed seem to be moving faster, due to the effects of warmer rain going through the many cracks down to the bedrock and allowing the glaciers to slide over it more easily, as well as the effects of warmer ocean surface water seeping in under the glaciers where the base of the glaciers meets the ocean. Once a chunk of ice has slid off the land and is free floating in the ocean, it has already caused the full amount of sea-level rise corresponding to the amount of water it contains.

Warming will increase evaporation, but this will only fall as increased rain where air temperature is low enough, so the analysis suggests that rain will indeed increase in latitudes further from the equator, but will reduce overall in tropical regions because the temperature is less likely to fall low enough.

You can define global warming denial as being solely man made global warming, but you're missing the picture of global warming most people see. With it narrowly defined as man made, though, I would agree it's irrational.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that man can cause the earth to warm. Most people don't see it that narrowly, though. They see wildly varying predictions on temperature change. They see doomsday theories stemming from warming. They saw the old environmentalists screaming about global cooling - that were horribly wrong - that sounded the same as the GW fanatics of today. It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, so they think it's a duck. They see political ramifications (ethanol mandates, anyone?). They see teachers telling kids not to flush toilets, and crazy Austrailian flash quizzes that tell children when they should die. We've also seen much more horrible things, like environmental scares killing millions because pesticides were banned that were and have since been proven safe. I can understand how this would make people uncomfortable, especially old people and conservatives.